Native American

U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Obama immigration case


A closely divided court heard oral arguments in a challenge by 26 states to President Obama’s executive action on immigration.

Arvelo said a denial of the president’s programs would change the lives of undocumented immigrants permanently. “It is a legislative act, not an executive act”, Kennedy said.

“Under your argument, could the president grant deferred removal to every. unlawfully present alien in the United States right now?”

As a mother of children with citizenship, Isabel Medina would quality to stay here.

He also announced the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

“Most people in this situation are just stuck, just vulnerable”.

“We challenged it not just because of it’s immigration policy”.

According to the Migrant Policy Institute, it’s estimated Texas has 559,000 people eligible for DAPA.

For children brought here illegally, they would have had to have arrived before January 1, 2010 and before their 16th birthdays.

He’s a senior from San Jose’s Branham High School and felt he needed to witness Monday’s hearing in person.

The absence of a ninth Supreme Court justice, after Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, could result in a split 4-4 decision on the Texas lawsuit.

If the Supreme Court ruling expected by this summer defeats DAPA, Schommer said, “All the people who gathered their evidence in anticipation of applying, are not going to have anything to apply for”. “The President’s action overrides our system of checks and balances and enables a president to authorize that a federal law be ignored and replaced with an Executive Order”. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that there are not enough resources to deport everyone.

“We’re here to let our representatives know what our country deserves, what millions of undocumented families deserve”, said Nayely Ruiz, 21, a protester who spoke on behalf of the millions of families and friends that could benefit from DAPA.

Case watchers are also keeping a close eyes of Chief Justice John Roberts, who has given more than a passing glance to standing issues.

He explained that the Court is supposed to work within constraints, in that “it can only uphold or strike down what Congress and state legislatures have already passed”.

“It says right there: equal justice under the law for everyone”.

“It is driven by political hostility toward President Obama and his immigration policy”, Durbin said. “They don’t have criminal histories, criminal convictions and they don’t have a history of immigration violations”, Schommer said.

Information for this article was contributed by Mark Sherman of The Associated Press; by Greg Stohr and Laurie Asseo of Bloomberg News; and by Max Ehrenfreund of The Washington Post.

Darrin Jackson

The author Darrin Jackson

Leave a Response